Do you believe in God?

[BubbleBelly542]

Let me put in my 2c.

As a whole I think religion is the blind leading the blind. People are often born into a faith and just continue to believe. They never begin to think for themselves.

That's not to say that religion is a horrible thing though. I may not believe in much of it, but people do good things for their faith. I love all of the volunteering and good deeds this leads too.

On one end, religion is difficult for me because the only reason we have to believe in '(G)(g)od' is the Bible, an extremely biased collection of books full of stories that were passed down over time orally as well as translated, which can lead to false information. As I don't believe in God, you'd think that I am COMPLETELY ignorant and insensitive, but I respect others beliefs and I can't totally shrug off this idea. This leads me too my next idea...

Atheists are on the other end. Not believing in God. But who are they to say? As I said there was no real (in my opinion) proof God does exist, there is no proof that there is no God. And sorry atheists, but I think that is really ignorant. What proof do you have that God isn't real? Science? Well several religions accept science, and some even believe that God created science.

Needless to say, I am in between on this.

 

[Liquid]

Science contradicts/disproves some of the things God is supposed to have done. Evolution, formation of the Earth and so on.

Not all atheists are people who take science as absolute fact. Science vs. Religion is not the same as Atheism vs. Theism.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

I know, but several Atheists use that. At least those that I know.

 

[TankAss95]

Let me put in my 2c.

As a whole I think religion is the blind leading the blind. People are often born into a faith and just continue to believe. They never begin to think for themselves.

That's not to say that religion is a horrible thing though. I may not believe in much of it, but people do good things for their faith. I love all of the volunteering and good deeds this leads too.

On one end, religion is difficult for me because the only reason we have to believe in '(G)(g)od' is the Bible, an extremely biased collection of books full of stories that were passed down over time orally as well as translated, which can lead to false information. As I don't believe in God, you'd think that I am COMPLETELY ignorant and insensitive, but I respect others beliefs and I can't totally shrug off this idea. This leads me too my next idea...

Atheists are on the other end. Not believing in God. But who are they to say? As I said there was no real (in my opinion) proof God does exist, there is no proof that there is no God. And sorry atheists, but I think that is really ignorant. What proof do you have that God isn't real? Science? Well several religions accept science, and some even believe that God created science.

Needless to say, I am in between on this.

You sound like an Agnostic 👍.
I think that we should look at other views, and challenge our own. I support Christianity because I actually do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that there is enough evidence to support this, and that's what I will continue to present to everyone in this discussion.
As for the existance of a deity, I really find that obvious. I can't really explain why, but I have always believed in a God (not always a personal one however), it was from that that I branched into Christianity.
The whole fact that we have a general unified sense of morality convinces me that there is an absolute moral law given by an absolute law giver. Also the fact that the universe is accessable to the human mind and that we can interact with nature and try to understand it also convinces me of a deity. Simple, everyday things like mathematics strengthens my belief in God.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Atheists are on the other end. Not believing in God. But who are they to say? As I said there was no real (in my opinion) proof God does exist, there is no proof that there is no God. And sorry atheists, but I think that is really ignorant. What proof do you have that God isn't real? Science? Well several religions accept science, and some even believe that God created science.

Until he walks up to me and shakes my hand....not gonna happen.

I'm a "believe it when I see it" kinda guy.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

You sound like an Agnostic 👍.
I think that we should look at other views, and challenge our own. I support Christianity because I actually do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that there is enough evidence to support this, and that's what I will continue to present to everyone in this discussion.
As for the existance of a deity, I really find that obvious. I can't really explain why, but I have always believed in a God (not always a personal one however), it was from that that I branched into Christianity.
The whole fact that we have a general unified sense of morality convinces me that there is an absolute moral law given by an absolute law giver. Also the fact that the universe is accessable to the human mind and that we can interact with nature and try to understand it also convinces me of a deity. Simple, everyday things like mathematics strengthens my belief in God.

That last sentence... I don't see how math gives you belief in God. Not saying it can't I'd just like to know how. It's an interesting thought.

 

[PeterJB]

Atheists are on the other end. Not believing in God. But who are they to say? As I said there was no real (in my opinion) proof God does exist, there is no proof that there is no God. And sorry atheists, but I think that is really ignorant. What proof do you have that God isn't real? Science? Well several religions accept science, and some even believe that God created science.

👍

When questions about the origins of the universe come up, I'm likely to get critiqued by the atheist members of this forum because I believe that 'God did it'. While yes, I do believe that 'God did it', the question that interests me is 'How did God do it?'. Science and religion can be perfectly compatible with one another, and I am eternally grateful to both for their contributions to humanity. I am a Christian, but I am also an amateur astronomer and have a deep interest in Physics. The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies, but to me that doesn't make it any more wrong. The story of creation and garden of Eden is clearly wrong (The Garden of Eden may have existed, but Adam and Eve weren't the first people), but in the Bible it does say that a thousand years are like a day to God, and a day like a thousand years. Fundamentalists tend to miss that bit out when they claim that the Earth was created in seven days 6000 years ago.

Obviously not everything in religion is perfect, Extremist groups and fundamentalists are a constant reminder of that, but I believe that the good in it has triumphed over the evil. Society would have completely collapsed by now if the rather controversial laws in Leviticus were still common practice, or if all Muslims were members of Al-Qaeda, and all Christians members of the KKK and WBC.

 

[Dotini]

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. My understanding is that Mormons believe God is a physical being residing on a physical planet in our universe. In other words, if we had the right telescope, we could see God and resolve the question once and for all. Our telescopes are getting to the point where distant planets can be detected. I wonder how Rommey feels about funding telescopes?

Respectfully - even to Mormons,
Steve

 

[Zenith]

Atheists are on the other end. Not believing in God. But who are they to say? As I said there was no real (in my opinion) proof God does exist, there is no proof that there is no God. And sorry atheists, but I think that is really ignorant. What proof do you have that God isn't real? Science? Well several religions accept science, and some even believe that God created science.

Needless to say, I am in between on this.

I posted this a couple of pages ago, but I'll ask again.

Why are you expecting people to prove a negative? No matter how much proof that directly contradicts what Theists and religions have said, it's impossible to prove that something like the existence of god is untrue to those who unconditionally believe he does.

Prove I that I can't fly. You can't. Even if you throw me off a building a thousand times and watch me splatter on the pavement, you can never definitively prove that I wasn't just hiding my abilities for ***** and giggles.

Moral of the story: Read 1984.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

I posted this a couple of pages ago, but I'll ask again.

Why are you expecting people to prove a negative? No matter how much proof that directly contradicts what Theists and religions have said, it's impossible to prove that something like the existence of god is untrue to those who unconditionally believe he does.

Prove I that I can't fly. You can't. Even if you throw me off a building a thousand times and watch me splatter on the pavement, you can never definitively prove that I wasn't just hiding my abilities for ***** and giggles.

Moral of the story: Read 1984.

But you can't prove that you can't Anyways, I wasn't here a couple of pages ago so...

 

[HP]

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. My understanding is that Mormons believe God is a physical being residing on a physical planet in our universe. In other words, if we had the right telescope, we could see God and resolve the question once and for all. Our telescopes are getting to the point where distant planets can be detected. I wonder how Rommey feels about funding telescopes?

Respectfully - even to Mormons,
Steve

Mormons........... Some religions deserve respect in some form, Mormons do not.

Any religion that travels half way around the world to knock on my door to convert me deserves utter contempt. Last time I was telling them how I despise the huge extravagant churches that a lot of different religions build instead of funding stuff that matters... the two guys agreed then ten minutes later gave me a pamphlet with THEIR Salt Lake City temple on it, it's far king huge! I Lol'd at them and ordered them off my property, fools. Pretty much sums up most religions too, just in it for the cash a lot of them

 

[Zenith]

But you can't prove that you can't Anyways, I wasn't here a couple of pages ago so...

I assume you meant

"But you can't prove than you can."

Exactly. Neither can theists. And that's the point.

Edit: If we're going to say that god created the universe, you have to take the possibility that I am god just as seriously because you can't prove that I'm not.

 

[Endurance]

Nah I don't and I never have. Even though my family all believe God exists, it's just never seemed 'believable', to me. Although I do respect what others want to think may or may not be true, I don't like it when people try to force their opinion on me.

 

[BobK]

No, they are a sub-genre of Christians, because they do believe in Christ. It's kinda like metal music: there are dozens of sub-genres and classifications.

I know that, and you know that, but my question basically was if nitrorocks knows that.

If more people asked themselves WWJD, the world would be a far, far, far better place than it is today.

For once I can completely agree with a statement of yours! 👍

Respect is one thing, but disobeying the rules of the English language is another thing altogether.

So if someone hands in a paper to their college professor and they just so happen to mention God in the text as "Him" is it disrespectful for the professor to mark the student down for a grammar error? The professor is only upholding the same rules of the English language for every student. Correct?

If the professor marked the student down that wouldn't be disrespectful, but it would be incorrect for him to do so. A quick Google search showed that according to a number of capitalization guides, capitalizing Him/His/etc when they refer to God is very much correct. To dogmatically claim that it's wrong is, well, wrong.

In the same way Christians respect the conventions and lifestyles of everyone who disagree with them? Do you want to follow the grammar rules of every sincerely held belief? They'd probably conflict over the same tiny space because they both feel that a certain rule had been promised to them.

As above. It's nto a strictly Christian thing either, it applies as well to Judaism and Pastafarianism; it's entirely correct to capitalize references to His Noodly Appendage, for instance.

And my sarcasm detectors have never been good over the Internet, but that second part was a joke, right?

It was meant to be a light hearted comment, but given the reaction to Salman Rushdie and the Danish newspaper cartoon controversy, yeah, there's a bit of seriousness there too.

 

[RBW]

But you can avoid all that with a quick deathbed confession tho right?

Correct, but you must have a clean heart. You actually have to want to take Jesus as your savior.

 

[HP]

Correct, but you must have a clean heart. You actually have to want to take Jesus as your savior.

With death looming I don't think sincerity will be a problem!

Personally I shall wave away such ideas, for me death is the ultimate finality & as such my deathbed (unless I go unexpectedly) will be littered with a plethora of hedonistic indulgences, not the least of which will be an enormous Belgian Trappist beer! I think Westvleteren poured down my gullet by a nekkid buxom temptress will do nicely

 

[TankAss95]

This is going to be my attempt to support the argument for the existance of Jesus. As the old saying goes: "I will use all the brains I can borrow".

First we will hear some vioces from some leading historians:

"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity... I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life,and especially of his public career: Jesus was born c. 4BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptised by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and counrtyside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached 'the kingdom of God'; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the High Priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman perfect, Pontius Pilate. We may add here a short list of equally secure facts about the aftermath of Jesus' life: his disciples fled; they saw him (in what sence is not certain) after his death; as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom; they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah." - Ed Sanders of Duke University (USA), one of the leading figures in the historical study of Jesus over the last three decades, and a self-confessed agnostic (E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', Penguin Books, 1993, p.11.)

"All this does is render highly implausable any far fetched theories that even Jesus' very existance was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score." -Christopher Tucket, University of Oxfprd, author of the Cambridge University textbook on the historical Jesus (Christopher Tuckett, "Sources and Methods", in 'The Cambridge Companion to Jesus', ed. Mark Bockmuehl, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.124.)

"The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity. The notices about Jesus in Jewish and pagan writers... - especially those in Josephus, the letter of Sarapion and Tactitus - indicate that in antiquity the historicity of Jesus was taken for granted, and rightly so, as two observations on the above mentioned sources show:
The notices about Jesus are independent of one onother. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize informatioon about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historian, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.
All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways: Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sapapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been invented" - Gerd Thiessen, a leading German New Testament historian (Gerd Theissen and Annette Marz, 'The Historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide', Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1998, pp.93-94)

From these quotes alone we can see that Bertand Russell was talking in sheer ignorance of the facts, when he wrote in his book 'Why I Am Not a Christian', in which he wrote:
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and even if he did we know nothing about him." - (Bernard Russell, 'Why I Am Not a Christian, London, George Allen and Unvin, 1957, p.16.)

Until he walks up to me and shakes my hand....not gonna happen.

I'm a "believe it when I see it" kinda guy.

This is what really annoys me in this thread. Everyone keeps shouting "no evidence" and even after I spend ages researching and typing stuff into my computer it just gets ignored.
Perhaps you should look into some historical evidence of Jesus' life and the ressurection.

That last sentence... I don't see how math gives you belief in God. Not saying it can't I'd just like to know how. It's an interesting thought.

What I meant was that we can count and record things in a simple manner. I find it amazing how we can understand our surroundings. Conciousness, if you like. 👍
As Albert Einstein once said, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

@TankAss you say we keep bringing up a lack profit of Jesus. But Jesus was real, no doubt in my mind. It's God that I question. Also, I believe It's the Jewish faith that believes Jesus was real but held no holiness? Would that be the word. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[nitrorocks]

@TankAss you say we keep bringing up a lack profit of Jesus. But Jesus was real, no doubt in my mind. It's God that I question. Also, I believe It's the Jewish faith that believes Jesus was real but held no holiness? Would that be the word. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Congrats to the 1000th post! 👍 But yes, God is real. Jesus was sent down as God in man's image so people could know what God looked like. So, in a way, Jesus was God.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

Congrats to the 1000th post! 👍 But yes, God is real. Jesus was sent down as God in man's image so people could know what God looked like. So, in a way, Jesus was God.

Oh what the... I was gonna do something special for 1000! Thanks for telling me!

Anyways, that's a good point to show what he looks like. But I was taught that they were separate, and Jesus was just to spread God's message. When he was crucified under Pontius Pilot (sp?), it was to show his devotion to God. That he went to heaven and joined God.

I could certainly be wrong though.

 

[TankAss95]

@TankAss you say we keep bringing up a lack profit of Jesus. But Jesus was real, no doubt in my mind. It's God that I question. Also, I believe It's the Jewish faith that believes Jesus was real but held no holiness? Would that be the word. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well in the Christian faith Jesus was (or is) the Son of God. He is part of the trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
For a starting point look into the evidence for the ressurection, and how people reacted in his life and after he rose from the dead. One thing that amazes me is that it was women that found Jesus's tomb empty and were the first witnesses of him conquering death. Back in those times, women were looked down upon and were not taken seriously for witnesses of crimes etc. Surely if they made the thing up (which doesn't seem probable at all die to historical evidence) they would have written it differently?
And I'm not sure but I think the Jewish believe in parts of the Old Testament, but don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

And I recommend you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA5Bh8Zk0Xo&feature=related
Enjoy. 👍

 

[superbike81]

If the professor marked the student down that wouldn't be disrespectful, but it would be incorrect for him to do so. A quick Google search showed that according to a number of capitalization guides, capitalizing Him/His/etc when they refer to God is very much correct.

Just because the belief in God is common enough to the point that it has invaded our education system doesn't make it "correct." I'll bet any state funded university which CORRECTLY follows the rules set by the separation of church and state would disagree with those "guides" you quote.

 

[nitrorocks]

Oh what the... I was gonna do something special for 1000! Thanks for telling me!

Anyways, that's a good point to show what he looks like. But I was taught that they were separate, and Jesus was just to spread God's message. When he was crucified under Pontius Pilot (sp?), it was to show his devotion to God. That he went to heaven and joined God.

I could certainly be wrong though.

That's the way I believe. Jesus was God in a man's image/form because all og the people didn't know what he looked like. So he sen his son down to spread the word, and to let people get a good idea of what God looked like. Then he died on the cross for all our sins. In the book of Revelations, he states that he will come back, and if the world by chance does end this year (I think it won't) or whenever the world ends, that is why because he is making his final return destroying the Anti-Christ and Armageddon. It's a very confusing process and it took me a while to understand it from when my counselors were explaining it to me. I also had to read through Revelations very closely.

 

[CodeRedR51]

This is what really annoys me in this thread. Everyone keeps shouting "no evidence" and even after I spend ages researching and typing stuff into my computer it just gets ignored.
Perhaps you should look into some historical evidence of Jesus' life and the ressurection.

I'll pass, thank you very much.

 

[superbike81]

There is ZERO hard data that proves Jesus was resurrected. You can prove he was alive, but just because he lived doesn't mean he was who he claimed to be. Again, con-artist.

 

[TankAss95]

I'll pass, thank you very much.

So with you it doesn't matter what is true or not, you just don't want to believe in God no matter what.
There's no point arguing with you then. Don't waste my time.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So with you it doesn't matter what is true or not, you just don't want to believe in God no matter what.
There's no point arguing with you then. Don't waste my time.

Ditto, sir.

 

[nitrorocks]

There is ZERO hard data that proves Jesus was resurrected. You can prove he was alive, but just because he lived doesn't mean he was who he claimed to be. Again, con-artist.

Wha??? Why say that?

 

[Joel]

So with you it doesn't matter what is true or not, you just don't want to believe in God no matter what.
There's no point arguing with you then. Don't waste my time.

That's not true, and you know it. The onus is on you, the believer, to show US the hard evidence of Jesus's resurrection, you're the one claiming a man came back from the dead after 3 days. If I were to tell you that I can fly, you'd tell me to prove it, it wouldn't make sense for me to tell you to prove I can't fly.

 

[nitrorocks]

Sometimes I just think you guys don't want to believe. Maybe it's fear, maybe I'm wrong.